8 Ways Ancient Aliens Causes Confusion

Ancient Aliens has been known to stretch the truth, omit facts, and just flat out get things wrong. So if they are interviewing the "experts" and getting simple things wrong, how can we even believe that they are credible? Check out this article:

8 Ways Ancient Aliens Causes Confusion

Why don't you also cite people for this program?

Anything that causes a person to question their faith is a good thing. Understanding why you have a belief if just as important as the actual belief.

Or that one guy with the hair.

Really, why should we believe info put out by TPTB? Tool experts like Tyson, Nye and the rest of the media-friendly intellectuals need to go back to being real scientists and stop parading around like gods.

You link to a list of bible references? Nice trick.

Why not put this where it belongs? Religion or skunk works.

Very misleading.

a reply to: Iamthatbish

If you read the article, there are 3 cited, along with links directly to their writing and audio about their experiences on the show.

Questioning faith is fine, but its the lies that AA puts out that makes it dishonest. To ask why angels need a ladder is just silly when it was clearly a dream. Why do angels need a ladder in a dream to get back and forth to heaven? The same reason people can fly in dreams. It's a dream.

So entertainment shows are not real and are not based on any facts.

Got it!

a reply to: jude11

That's not true. Did you read the article? It doesn't link to a bunch of Bible verses. It links to articles, testimonies from people that appeared on the show, and more. At least be honest, unlike AA.

a reply to: jude11

I know it's almost as bad as using an atheist or Muslim site to start a thread

a reply to: strangechristian777

Is God or any of the Angels originally from Earth?
No, which makes him,her,it an extraterrestrial.

a reply to: strangechristian777

Its an alternative theory. Or a different interpretation of the facts available. For people that think for themselves.

The one link you gave me had a clear agenda, it didn't keep my attention.

originally posted by: strangechristian777
a reply to: jude11

That's not true. Did you read the article? It doesn't link to a bunch of Bible verses. It links to articles, testimonies from people that appeared on the show, and more. At least be honest, unlike AA.

I'm half way down and most of it is about Christianity and the bible. I agree with Jude, it's a poor trick

EDIT: In fact the AA theory is more believable than the bible.

originally posted by: skyblueworld

originally posted by: strangechristian777
a reply to: jude11

That's not true. Did you read the article? It doesn't link to a bunch of Bible verses. It links to articles, testimonies from people that appeared on the show, and more. At least be honest, unlike AA.

I'm half way down and most of it is about Christianity and the bible. I agree with Jude, it's a poor trick

EDIT: In fact the AA theory is more believable than the bible.

Spiritual Warfare, Apologetics, and Other Cool Bible Stuff - See more at: ministerfortson.com...

Strangechristian trick indeed.


Probably why proselytizers are universally held in such high regard.

originally posted by: strangechristian777
a reply to: Iamthatbish

If you read the article, there are 3 cited, along with links directly to their writing and audio about their experiences on the show.

Questioning faith is fine, but its the lies that AA puts out that makes it dishonest. To ask why angels need a ladder is just silly when it was clearly a dream. Why do angels need a ladder in a dream to get back and forth to heaven? The same reason people can fly in dreams. It's a dream.

So how is that any different than religion lying about reality with all these talks about global floods, men walking on water, and other craziness? You are calling out a show as fictional that is misrepresenting fictional material.

I feel tricked.



Strangechristian, you ever see the original 007?
take a look!

Hmm...

I guess I missed the part where the Ancient Aliens program stated that their show was based 100% on irrefutable facts. I always just... kinda assumed that the show was... you know... based on the opinions of experts (yes, experts) in their chosen field of study.

So... yeah. Nice try buckaroo, but this tale don't jive, dig?

a reply to: strangechristian777

Ancient Aliens is on to make money, it's that simple..facts or no facts so they will do what they can to keep viewers entertained.

He found a source and explanation that made sense to him and wanted to get others input on it. What I would like to see is a fact supported statement which does not come from source material (AAT Author or Religious text) that disproves beyond a doubt either Christianity or AA Theory without doing the same to the other. Both points are valid and it may be both are true. The potentially alien beings we refer to as gods may well be gods when compared to us, not only technologically but also metaphysically and philosophically.

By that same parameter, YHWH (or whichever moniker you prefer for the Judeo-Christian deity) could well be a being with a superiority complex, as evidenced in Corinthians 8:5-6 "(5)For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,(6) yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.…". AA Theory hinges on religious texts, not just The Bible, being an accurate witness to events but also hinges on their inaccuracy due to primitive perception. Neither can be even partially wrong without the other following suit in some way. Just a thought.

It only causes confusion in those that don't "get it". And the OP is trying to emphisize that. That he's referring to himself: That he does not get it.

The rest of us understand that these shows are only conjecture and opinion...and not the only nor final, definitive conclusions to the stated show or topics.

The shows only lead to confusion when someone watching doesnt understand them. It appears to me the OP is a bit bothered by them. No?

You know, OP, I had full intentions in dropping in here to defend you. I read the title but didn't recognize your name. I thought to myself, "Oh no, here is a new guy about to get slaughtered and hung out to dry with a post like this, better go see the bloodbath and see if I can help." I'm fairly new around here myself, but I learned my do's and don'ts real quick.

After reading through the article and feeling a bit duped myself, I'm good. Just gonna mosey on back to the new post page and Good luck with all this.

Regarding your OP just so I don't get my post removed. You can't fight BS with another load of BS. That's just way to much BS in one place and nobody has boots tall enough to wade out of it all.

Have a great day sir and enjoy your time here at ATS.

I do not view ancient alien theory as an organized body of theories or hypotheses, rather I see it as people gathering up anything that we have not sufficiently explained and attaching aliens to it. I would be surprised to learn if the stuff they present on the History Channel show was actually all written down somewhere as a coherent set of ideas. And sometimes they do not even postulate on unexplained phenomena, but actually take history that has already been explained and they twist it around. I have no problem with speculation, but you still have to have something to go on, as opposed to the "evidence" that is used to support the majority of ancient astronaut claims.

The main reason that I do not denounce every single one of their hypotheses as being absolutely incorrect is because we cannot know with 100% certainty that they are incorrect. Of course the probability is so very low that they likely are incorrect, but there is no certainty. I am a guy who places the utmost important on the sum of all eyewitness encounters. The more reports that exist detailing a thing, the higher the probability that what is being described has some merit. I think that is one of the strongest pieces of circumstantial evidence for anything. But where ancient sources are concerned we cannot have such accounts. In fact, it is the lack of information that usually allows these crazy hypotheses to bloom.

What really turns me away are the outlandish claims and the twisting of facts. For instance, basing anything off of the work of Sitchin. I still see people on these forums who believe that his translations were accurate, when they have been proven to be false. But that is what I mean...They grasp at straws for many of these ideas. Or take the Egyptian relief depicting a "light bulb." I mean really? Does one think that the ONE carving, with no other evidence, means that is the most likely explanation, especially after scholars have repeatedly described exactly what it was? One cannot take a single instance and twist it in that manner. There has to be other evidence that directly links it, and this is almost always lacking. Or like the "helicopter" carving, which has also been explained. I still see ancient astronaut "theorists" using this same old piece of evidence. I mean because aliens possessed the technology to traverse the universe, and they were using helicopters. Right.